Slashdot Mirror
Peercasting Ready for Primetime?
ZephyrXero writes "Have you ever wanted to run your own internet radio or TV station, but
thought the bandwidth would cost too much? While Wired
thinks Peer-to-peer broadcasting, or "peercasting", will be the future
of the internet (previously
posted); Peercast.org
says it's already here today. Peercast's software is available for Linux,
Windows, and Mac. You can
broadcast both audio and video without needing a whole lot of bandwidth
since each audience member also uploads back to the network. The Xiph Foundation
is also working on a similar project called "IceShare,"
but it's still in planning. Peercast,
still in beta seems to already be fully functional and ready for an audience (even you dial-up guys)."
I would guess that the TV networks would try to stomp this and hard.
Why?
Protection of an already diluted market.
Over the last 10 years, they've been hammered by Cable, Sattelite TV, and now BitTorrent. Appointment TV is dying.
Now comes another technology designed to possibly make it so you can watch any show at any time. The more who watch, the more who are able to watch.
The TV Networks SHOULD be the ones leading this charge.
But they won't, because they can't imagine anything outside of the current "Must See TV" trap that's locked them in over the past decades.
People Talking in Movie shows.. people smoking in bed.. people voting republican.. GIVE THEM A BOOT TO THE HEAD!
A community could also run sites like Slashdot with everybody sharing the bandwidth. That might mean no ads, no dependency on a single corporation, everybody can participate in selecting stories, setting "locality" - browsing stories scored by an interest group a reader belongs to, by a group close geographically, or with the score averaged globally.
I'm curious to know how "peercasting" and peer-to-peer softwares change the network bandwidth usage for a country or across geos.
Currently, even though the internet is supposed to be a decentralized network, it's still built with old network usage patterns in mind. Bandwidth is allocated accordingly as well.
I think that along with P2P network usage, wireless usage (WiMax, for example) will also change the bandwidth usage pattern.
Although i'm not a network designer by any means, i would still be very interested to know how the network designs of the future would look like, and the kinds of bottlenecks one would face in the future, if still connected to the older networks.
While I'm sure everyone is ready to scream "it's the age of the one man TV Station!", we may not be entirely there just yet.
Media distribution is a technological problem, and there for inenvitably solvable.
But content is not. It still takes Talent, Money and Training (or 2 of the 3:) to produce content on the level that people expect. You can look to modern day BLOGs as a paradime. Everybody and his brother has a BLOG, but how many of them have regular readers? Only a few people have the tallent to write anything that the rest of us care to read.
The situation is made worse with a peercast network because:
1) you need the tallent
2) You need a host of OTHER people with tallent (say actors)
3) You need people to watch it. Lot's of people, a traditional BLOG doesn't require ramp up, to scale. But you need a following to get a following. Chicken and the egg.
Until problems like "Bad Actors" get solved it may be some time before peercasts acomplish anything more than syndicating otherpeoples (read comercial/stolen/porn) media.
I would rather be ashes than dust!
Software like this raises an interesting question, where is the talent?
I'm running Firefox, a free browser created from donated talent on the internet,(and occasionally funded & used as a testing ground for new stuff by corporations.)
I read my email with Thunderbird, a free client created from donated talent on the internet,(and occasionally funded & used as a testing ground for new stuff by corporations.)
I write documents with OpenOffice.org, a free office sutie created from donated talent on the internet (and occasionally funded & used as a testing ground for new stuff by corporations.)
Why is there so little entertainment produced this way? There are people out there with free time and talent. There are media companies with spare cash who don't want to spend jillions hyping a sitcom with a theme that will flop. Or is it just a matter of time?
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
As I understand it, BitTorrent (and by extension, IceCase which is layered on top of BitTorrent) solves this problem at the peer level using a tit-for-tat algorithm: people who aren't uploading packets don't get many download packets either. This seems like a much more robust solution than "blessed binaries" (which will be hacked anyway, and prevent people from developing their own clients)
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
I can't imagine anybody using this for long.
This is different from bittorrent for several reasons.
Streaming media requires data to arrive from the start to the end. bittorrent doesn't guarantee that the start arrives before the rest of the data. Actually bittorrent acts like it buffers for the duration of the stream - then the stream can play. This system sends the data in order so you only have to buffer for a short time - like any normal streaming protocol.
The second difference (as it appears from the documentation) is that this is just an icecast client and an icecast server rolled up together; basically a normal icecast relay but with a local display. Add in to that the ability to find relays using some sort of tracker and the clients can switch away from bad relays.
This is problematic if you end up having to keep hopping. What is needed is multiresolution codecs with low resolution data being sent by many peers (mirrored), and higher resolution data being interlaced among them (striped). That way you would be connected to several peers and a failure in any of them leaves the stream working at a slightly reduced quality until another peer can be connected. This doesn't necessarily mean using a multiresolution transform for audio and video, because the data is often separable into broad data and fine data anyway.